American Flag flying upside down as signal of DISTRESS


12/6/07


Day Of Slaughter

Dieter H. Dahmen

November 1, 2004



"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --- James Madison.
There is no word known to me that I could press into service here by which to describe the immense flurry of lamentations, one avalanche after another as it were, now choking the airwaves, all, in spite of their diversity, nonetheless reflecting an incredible sameness. All describing governmental wrongdoings. In one way or another proclaiming, and rightly so, that the Feds are coming. One tocsin call after another, yet no one thinks it necessary to explain how the Feds came to be unleashed, why they are coming, and what it is they will do once they get here. The only element that seems to rest on common understanding is that whatever it is they will do here is that it is not good, accentuated by an absurd belief that all one has to do is shout Constitution and the predators will slink away. Oh, the depth and power of the cult of ignorance.

Something is lacking! Everyone seems to know terror prevails, but no one wants to suggest what must be done to seek remedy. I am reminded here of a commercial, where people are seen standing in shock, expressing disbelief at a callous act of flouting, no one even remotely considering to remedy the infraction, and are thus overpowered, when a stranger to them all, just passing by, remedies the fault.

What is it then that is lacking? It is the lack of understanding the elements of the Great Republic, of a democracy, and an inability to envision the enormous, scintillating difference between these two. I have asked many many times to give me their understanding of that difference and their replies speak of an incredible degree of not knowing, an ignorance so intense as to boggle the mind, centering on total misperception of the Great Republic and democracy, and above all of the true intent and real essence of the Second Amendment, which defines the difference between the Great Republic and democracy, any democracy.

I once heard a female insist that she was still a virgin. She was neither promiscuous nor indiscriminate, she explained, she was instead highly selective in choosing the male with whom she intended to spend the night. The same sense of overwhelming perplexity intrudes into my soliloquy when I, having asked for example for a definition of democracy, must hear the incredibly distorted opinions on the matter by those who claim to know.

With all due respect, they do not know! With only a handful of exceptions, no one knows. No one knows what the Great Republic was! No one knows what a democracy is! Therefore, no one knows the difference between them and, therefore, does not know the essence of the Second Amendment. And worse, no one knows the essence of what it was that was required to secure this great marvel - the American Republic.

There are some three hundred million Americans. Virtually all of them love democracy, believing it, I assume, to be the mandate of our Constitution, having come to think that permission and liberty are synonyms. Some give a dictionary definition for republic and democracy, both horribly strained to yield a distinction of sorts, all not only being terribly inadequate, but also woefully incorrect, because in the Great Republic’s case dictionary definitions are also tragically incomplete, totally overlooking the incredible uniqueness of what the Founding Fathers had assembled here.

Look at the incompleteness of the following statement defining a republic to be Rule by Law and a democracy to be Rule by Majority. In support of that assessment, just after the signing of the Constitution, Franklin’s reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, is correctly given as "A Republic, if you can keep it", but is then followed by this observation: Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is. A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

While the definition here has merit it is, however, completely inadequate, because it does not account for the fact that all governments have a constitution by which to justify their resolution of justice. In Nazi Germany, no Jew ever went to the oven without the benefit of law – Nazi law, the Nazi constitution. Therefore, it is not essential to know what rules, but who rules, who the master is, and that is either the citizen or government. Only one can be the sovereign. When it is the former, government is servant and when it is the latter, the citizen is servant.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, well over two hundred million Americans think it to be the root of all crime. Of the remainder, who carry arms, some see no difficulty in having possessing arms circumscribed and the rest, although knowing it to be a right, think of it only in terms of having it allow hunting, target shooting, and self-defense and of these last only a few include self-defense against a predatory government. But even these few have only come to the river’s edge seemingly never contemplating crossing it to where the euphoric perception of sovereignty is stenciled in rock. Sadly, personal kingship, it seems, is thought to be a concept too abstract for understanding even though it once was the quintessential element of all things American and understood by everyone!

I am overwhelmed by so much ignorance, all self-imposed. How can something so sublime have been delegated to the realms of darkness, nurtured there by raw forgetfulness? So the nation suffers and suffers justly and because of it her people are prepared for the day of slaughter. The vortex into madness, bringing the Nation into the abyss, is opened; all thinking is polluted and has given me occasion once again to try to give an explication here.

Today, perception concerning war, the very instrument that secured the Great Republic, the Great Republic itself, the Second Amendment, which defines the Great Republic, and finally democracy, is cloaked in steep misunderstanding. Four concepts and I will try to shed some understanding on them in the order in which they are listed. I know these words will largely fall on ears not wanting to hear and reflect on eyes not willing to see, but I must write them for I owe Americans of a previous generation a great deal of gratitude and also because I gave an oath to uphold, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

These then are the reasons for my writing these lines, not to offend, just to challenge all to seek a true and correct understanding.

Some are imbued with an incredible anger, because their liberties are eroded to the level of nonexistence. Their advocacy to reverse their losses has them poised to enter into open conflict, a conflict that, as matters prevail at the moment, cannot secure a remedy. No one knows what must be done when men, strangers to both the profession of arms and the etiquette of war, roil together in defense of liberty or in an attempt to retrieve something precious and lost.

The American War for Independence did not begin on April 19th, 1775! It began long before then! For some twenty years Americans talked, wrote, and argued British injustices. The people were all informed. While some, maybe even most, saw no fault, they all, however, understood the underlying reason for discontent and that understanding generated a basis for a popular support without which no effort to secure independence could have succeeded.

These conditions do not prevail today. The vast majority of Americans considers government’s only purpose to be to provide safety and security - to protect Americans against the big, bad wolf. Unless this horrible perception is dispelled, at least in a sufficient number of Americans, all conflict will flounder at the reefs of ignorance. To avoid failure then, should open conflict be our destiny, must involve that all alludings to a government having become predacious must include the reasons for how such tyranny could have become unleashed on our shores.

I am reluctant to call it education and am more prone to call it reacquainting, but by whatever name it is attempted, instituting it is essential. It will generate popular support, for without it patriots will only be considered lunatics and secure nothing but destruction not only for themselves, but also for their cause.

I know it not to be easy, but it must be done, because, as someone else observed, “the problem we would have with an armed revolution at this time is the fact that the majority of the people would take US for terrorists and the army would be called in to defend their country, and not enough of them are knowledgeable enough to refuse to obey orders and we would be wiped out like bad breath.”

When general understanding is secured and with that popular empathy restored, logistics, strategy, and tactics will present themselves.

And what else do the people have to come to know and to understand again? Knowing and understanding all aspects of the Great Republic is absolutely required. I will not go into any great detail here, seeing that I have written extensively on the matter on other occasions. I will here, however, briefly make mention again of the fact that Christ the Redeemer was the very foundation of the Great Republic, of the duality of the States, and of the equality between them secured by Article 1, Section 3, paragraph 1 of our Constitution, only to see it all fall victim to the 17th Amendment. Let it be understood here that the ratification of the 17th Amendment levied the first deadly blow against the Great Republic, which then succumbed on Tuesday, October 22nd, 1968, when the 1968 gun control act was signed into effect, reducing the natural right to keep and bear arms, the escutcheon of sovereignty, to the level of a privilege.

It is, however, the essence of the Second Amendment, which apparently requires repeated digression, if one is to have hope to produce understanding. It is essential to comprehend that the power of the Second Amendment goes way beyond the notion of equipping the American people with means to protect themselves against a government gone mad. By bestowing sovereignty, personal kingship, on each American, the Second Amendment suffused the effect of totally inhibiting, long before it would even begin, any attempt by government to dominate, thus securing the empery of the American people. The citizen was sovereign and government his servant. It was the American citizen who gave permission and his government that received it. And so we come to realize that he who allows is the sovereign and he who is allowed is the servant.

I have no idea why sovereignty should pose any difficulties for comprehension. It should be easy to realize that the king requires permission from no one. He gives permission, he does not receive it. And personal kingship had been the American citizen’s Constitutional heritage. I most fervently hope Spartacus is not the only one who would share my understanding.

That brings me once more to democracy. Even though I exposed its tyranny also extensively on other occasions, laboriously showing that in a democracy no appeal to a Bill of Rights, as codified in our Constitution, can be made, it still bears justifying making another attempt at explicating its monstrosity. Hardly anyone today seems truly able to understand democracy's ferocity. The concept of democracy is, without exception, extolled daily in one form or another, extolled to high heaven. I have asked, asked repeatedly, to explain to me how this word came ever to be cloaked in this the most intensive euphoria ever. No one has ever given me an answer!

The word itself, demokratia, is a Greek compounded word combining demos meaning people and kratos meaning authority, rule. But only a perfunctory look should make poignantly clear how absurd this assertion really is. Yet people reach levels of ecstasy scarcely imaginable. Some seek to combine it with other words such as republic only exacerbating the absurdity. Others present themselves as doctors of democracy even though the monster has swallowed almost every part of their bodies. And listening only five minutes to Hannity and Colmes makes clear these two argue over the same monstrosity, only in a different vision, a vision, which, when stripped of its iridescent splendor, will reflect democracy’s true face.

Alexis de Tocqueville recognizes only two forms of government: aristocracy and democracy. He makes copious references to the American experiment calling it democracy although the title of his book, The Republic Of The United States Of America, And Its Political Institutions, Reviewed And Examined, says otherwise. Being foreign born he was not able to comprehend what made the American experiment so unique. He sensed it, but did not understand it. Had he understood, he would have seen that the American citizen’s sovereignty found its origin in the Second Amendment. But, as I said, he did not see it. He did see the sovereignty of the people, but not how it came to be vested in the citizens of this land.

Let us now remember here again that, as I said once before, democracy is an amalgam of two poisonous clouds: one socialism and the other religion. No other ingredients here. The dark one has never altered this his recipe. No ingredients; no participating, no free, no social, no Christian, no republican, no constitutional, no limited, to name just a few, either prefixed or suffixed, ever entered into his Walp¸rgis' brew. It was always the same, always has tasted the same, and always has wreaked the same havoc.

Two poisonous clouds then, socialism and religion, cohabited to spawn democracy. What I thought required here is a deeper explanation of the essence of socialism and religion - an expanded version of democracy, a version that at first did not come to mind, because of some obscuring aspects and, therefore, did not receive special attention.

But now I must correct that omission. Socialism demands compassion and religion, not Christianity, intones compassion. And these two give us the only two elements of madness any democracy can harbor - permission and prohibition – both under color of compassion. Religion, which suggests and recommends compassion, thus is predicated on permission, while socialism, that is legalized plunder, which demands compassion and, therefore, cannot tolerate a people able to resist, is predicated on prohibition. And it is the ratio of prohibition to permission, which defines and describes all democracies the world has ever known and reveals in most scintillating clarity the incredible kinship between Nazism, fascism, communism, liberalism, moderatism, and conservatism, showing all to be synonyms for democracy.

The Nazi democracy’s constituency, for example, comprised roughly 90 percent prohibition and 10 percent permission, the Bolshevik’s about 95 percent prohibition and 5 percent permission, and the Iraqi’s 100 percent prohibition and zero percent permission. The British democracy displays about 80 percent prohibition and 20 percent permission, and ours, the American democracy, presently functions on about 70 percent prohibition and 30 percent permission, showing every sign of exacerbating its virulence.

In time, and this is the irony of it all, when a democracy, as they all in time invariably do, has reached complete prohibition, that is when prohibition has overwhelmed permission, even religion, socialism’s lackey, having run interference for it until then, is also rejected and fallen victim to its voracity. For after all, religion not only runs interference for legalized plunder it is also the womb where revolt incubates, as it did in Russia and Iraq for instance.

Let us linger here a moment, before continuing, because we would do well to discover how religion metamorphoses into stark terror, when socialism has subsumed it.

A neighbor, somehow, is persuaded to enter the realm of organized do-goodism. She helps someone and is successful. She becomes ecstatic and is intoxicated by it, because, so goes her reasoning, God, if there is one, is good. Being good God loves good and, therefore, loves her and He would love her twice as much, if she were to help another person. And how does she get to help another person? She either strives to accomplish it or, if unsuccessful, will enlist the help of two other neighbors each to also help another. She will get half credit for each and thus will have earned a double portion of God’s love. But if she is not successful in recruiting two other neighbors, she will step into a voting booth, one she procured some time ago precisely for this eventuality, and will forcibly enlist the help of neighbors, enlisting their help without their consent.

It is here that religion, and I emphasize again religion, not Christianity, has run its course, has turned into unadulterated terror, is become the essence of socialism, and is converted from permission to total prohibition. The Great Republic would never have allowed it, because there the citizen’s free will was held inviolate, because he was sovereign.

Permission and prohibition then are all there is to a democracy! There is nothing else! This is the nature of this beast, a matter of natural cause! There is no conspiracy here! Just like a stone thrown in the air will fall back to earth without conspiring, without deliberating, without thinking, and without planning, so a democracy will in time reach the level of absolute bestiality, of total prohibition, without ever having conspired to reach this level of depravity.

I know this is difficult to see; after all, people are involved and people think, therefore, conspire. But a democracy, once instituted, assumes a character all of its own and pursues a course imposed upon it by nature, a course that leads to oblivion. If we would allow for three stages of development in a democracy, smile, smirk, and smack, then the time to go from smile to smack is all that distinguishes one democracy from another, one tyranny from another.

As another once described it, "It (democracy/tyranny) will be at first decorous, humane, glowing with homely American sentiment. But a dictatorship cannot remain benevolent. To continue, it must become ruthless. When this stage is reached we shall see that appeal by radio, movies, and government-controlled newspapers to all the worst instincts and emotions of our people. The rough, the violent, the lawless men will come to the surface and into power. This is the terrifying prospect as we move along our present course."

I truly do not know what more I could say here to make clear that as matters persist in the nation right now, being completely overwhelmed by a democracy, no appeal to the Constitution, as codified by the Framers, can be made with expectation to prevail. Nature will truly not permit it anymore than it would ever allow an elephant to impregnate a mosquito.

A democracy is thus exposed to be the opposite of the Great Republic, not any republic, only the American Republic. In the Great Republic the citizen was sovereign and government his servant, but in a democracy, any democracy, government is master and the citizen is servant. And it is behind the plough, at the working place, where master and servant come face to face. It is here where democracy shows how violent and how ruthless it can be.

To secure the greatest good for the maximum number of people, a democracy cannot operate with money based on a gold and silver standard, because a gold and silver standard limits the supply of money. The only standard available to a democracy then is debt, or more precisely labor – a person’s willingness and ability to render labor for money borrowed. It is fiat money! Thus it is the national debt that defines the very basis, which secures the value of US currency. This simple recognition should in most poignant terms make clear that the national debt cannot and will not ever be paid. Anyone advocating the contrary is either a fool or a charlatan.

A nation seeking to project an ever-increasing strength and wealth must constantly increase its national debt and to secure that debt’s value, the backing for its currency, must then continually increase its labor force. That is to say that the ratio of debt, that is money borrowed, to labor, must always increase and must always be greater than one. Establishing and then maintaining this ratio can be secured in several ways: postponing the retirement age, lengthening the workweek, increasing minimum wage, and multiplying the labor force.

Multiplying the labor force can be achieved, if slavery is rejected, in two ways: encourage large families, as was done in the Nazi democracy, or have open borders, which in a way was also practiced by the Nazi democracy, and is the reason why today our border with Mexico must and will remain open. All these options have but one purpose to accomplish: increase the potential for borrowing money thus increasing the national debt and with that the value of our currency. Any other explanation is pure rhetoric designed only to obscure and to deceive. No special thinking skills are required to realize what the final result will be should all this remain entrusted to the care of ignorance.

The Mexican democracy of course is also not immune to these principles of democratic perversion. It too must maintain a ratio of debt to labor greater than one. But Mexico cannot, as matters stand at the moment, increase that ratio at will. Its only option to maintain that ratio is to decrease its labor force and that it succeeds in doing by encouraging its surplus working force to infiltrate the US labor market. Thus Mexico and the US are found to be embraced in a symbiotic relationship – a relationship that cannot and will not be changed as long as democracy dominates our Nation’s life.

A State’s options to increase its supply of money are slightly different and always subject to Federal regulations. Not counting lotteries and gambling casinos, only four options avail themselves here; borrow money from the Federal Reserve, which is difficult to do, because a State cannot offer labor as backing. Its backing can only come through the issuance of bonds, which can guarantee that backing only when purchased by the people who will then furnish their labor as backing for the debt defined by these bonds. Thus there is only an indirect backing for borrowed money by a State and the Federal Reserve is, therefore, very reluctant to approve State loans. Thus there are essentially only three options left to a State to increase its supply of money and they are listed here in their increasing potency to achieve that end; taxation, which is always risky; fees, favored over taxation, because they can easily be hidden in bureaucratic shenanigans; and then finally, the most lucrative, fines.

Understand first that democracy has an unquenchable thirst for money and these three - tax, fees, and especially fines - are enlisted to see that the monster will not die of thirst, revealing in most conspicuous terms why the cost of living has reached stratospheric levels, while showing no sign of relenting. If we include State lotteries and Indian gambling casinos, the State’s yearly income is staggering, yet it is not enough, for California is bankrupt and if my understanding is correct, so is every State in the Union.

Fines, traffic fines, fines of any kind, not only guarantee an unending supply of money, but also allow for an indiscriminate daily increase of money, because in a democracy anything can be made subject to a fine. No one should be too surprised, when someday he finds himself having to pay a $1000 fine for having walked on the wrong side of the street. I once sat in one of six traffic court departments, during a two-hour docket, where by a rough estimate the court secured an income of some $20,000, a total of $80,000 per day. For the six departments that would have amounted to nearly half a million dollars and only heaven knows what the income would be if this procedure were repeated on a daily basis – over a hundred million dollars per year, per court, per the State of California. And that was over two years ago. Yes, fines secure an immense source of ready money and show no sign of not only ever going away, but instead of increasing in an unending furor.

Just to show this is no hyperbole, consider this. A single intersection in Roseville, a little town, seven miles or so northeast of Sacramento, generates a $35,000 fine income in one day. That is a million dollars per month, twelve million dollars per year. Should this generate a greater caution in motorists’ driving habits, thus reducing that income, a simple fine increase will remedy the loss of income.

Here we see then that in a democracy the police officer is nothing more than a deputized highwayman, all to enforce compassion. The Bolshevik democracy’s insignia, hammer and sickle, are truly to the point and I remain mystified how its appropriateness has continuously escaped everyone’s notice - the hammer to crush and the sickle to kill. Socialism opens the floodgates to let people become convulsive killers, alcoholics, liars, destroyers, stupid, callous, uncaring, obtuse, pathetic, depressive, and above all ignorant; men become effete and women mannish together raising the divorce rate to staggering levels. In short, virtually all pathogens destroying our Nation are socialism’s children, the natural consequence of having been engulfed by democracy.

All this must come to be understood, if we are to have hope to restore the Great Republic, for only here liberties can flourish. It is difficult to demonstrate how socialism infests the human soul, but it does and it is the most virulent pathogen ever, which, I fear, not even the black flames of hell can destroy. There is play on a connection of sorts. It goes something like this: A is bad. If there is a connection with B then B is exposed to be also bad. This is the approach used presently to denigrate each presidential candidate. Usama bin Ladin is bad. There is alleged to be a connection between him and President Bush, therefore, President Bush is bad. The Vietcong is bad. There is alleged to be a connection between Senator Kerry and Charley, therefore, the Senator is also bad. But this syllogism, when trying to show a connection between tyranny (A) and democracy (B), seems completely without persuasion; it does not lead to the same conclusion!

In concluding let me assert here that there is nothing vile about compassion. In fact it gives purpose to the human race. But when compassion is enlisted by force, when enforced through legislative edicts, evil is all it accomplishes, demonstrating that good is the crucible where evil incubates. This is the natural order of events for a democracy; no other alternative is possible. There will then come the day, when the only permission left is the permission to obey and then the day of slaughter will also have come and people will finally have come to realize the stark terror of democracy and that a right is more valuable than life itself.

Dieter H. Dahmen
Body and Soul American



To return to our home page, click: